Reflect on the end of the book and on the article on Time that we read in class. How are they alike and different? Then write about your idea of what you think the nature of Time is.
I found both the end of the book and the article that we read in class very interesting because it was hard to wrap my head around. For the book, it was talking about how time is something that is constant, like the flowing river. I liked how they related the river to time because it gave me a clearer visual of what the author was trying to describe. For the article, there was a different theory that you are living in the “now” and that all the events of the past, present, and future, are still happening. I have not made a clear decision of what my theory is on the concept of time because it is hard for be to consider all of the possibilities.
At the end of Siddhartha, the theme of time throughout the book was brought to the conclusion that time was like a river and it just keeps constantly moving and is some way non-existent. In the article, it is saying that time is like snapshots of different instances in time, in different "universes".
It is really hard for me to grasp these concepts because it is so off-base of what we know time to be. I understand what these two theories are saying about time but I'm not sure I can agree that either are true. I think of time as a measure of each day and more of a scientific approach as to why we have a past, present, and future.
The end of siddhartha says that there is no such thing as time. That life is a flowing river, unending and never starting. The time article basically says that we live in a whole bunch of demensions and periods at once...meaning we are being born, about to die and living our life in the present all at once.
Siddhartha's perception of time was that it combines all things and they mush together and the product comes out that time does not exist. In the article it simply talks about the complexity and contradictions of time. I believe in time, for every life form being defferent because the world is infinite and infathomable. One secnd in space time is like 12 hours earth time. and one second earth ime is like 12 hours in microscopic time. Its a hard concept to grasp, but quite amazing. Time is infinite, in size of what its measuring and length backward and forward.
When comparing the end of Siddhartha and the article we read in class. Time is an illusion and everything is happening now. Siddhartha is talking to Govinda and says, "During deep meditation it is possible to dispel time, to see simultaneously all the past, present and future, and everything is good, everything is perfect..." (pg.116) I thought this quote represented the ideas about time in both the book and article. The book and article differ in the idea that either time is like a river, continually running and never different, or that time is completely irrelevant and EVERYTHING is happening now and there is no such thing as the past or future. I think I agree more with the ideas about time in the book, that it is continuously running and there is now definite end or beginning.
In Siddhartha the idea of the river and how everything he has ever done has all been flowed together to make Siddhartha who he is at that moment. With the article we read in class it claimed that there are different "nows" that contain a part of us so that in some other universe is for example the birth of yourself and you fifty years from now, etc. They relate in how they both discuss time and how it works with how we change and grow. Yet they are different in how in Siddhartha everything flows together and works as one while the article about time explained how everything is cut up and into pieces rather than one big continuous stream. Also they are different by in the theroy of time he explains it as there is a part of you somewhere out there, already existing making you immortal. Yet in Siddhartha they claim that everything you have ever done has made you who you are then with out immortality in mind. Plus you are living for that life you have then to find nirvana in our short time on earth.
My idea on the nature of time is that everything you do makes you who you are today but a wrong doesnt mean that you are a wronged person you just learn from time. This is why in many cultures people see the elders as the wisest because they have learned from time the ideas of life. I don't know if I believe in the whole theroy of having different nows and you will always be immortal.
The end of the book Siddhartha and the article Time that we read in class are similar and dissimilar in a couple ways. First, they both go into much detail about the way they perceive time moves. In Siddhartha, both Siddhartha and Govinda claim to be able to look into the eyes of one they greatly admire and see the many faces and scenes of their life flash before the their eyes. On page 121 Govinda claims, “He no longer saw the face of Siddhartha. Instead in saw other faces, many faces, a long series, a continuous stream of faces-hundreds, thousands, which all came and disappeared and yet all seemed to be there at the same time, which all continually changed and renewed themselves, and which were all yet Siddhartha.” This quote perfectly describes and relates to the way the article Time believes life is simply a snapshot of events. Only difference is that in Time, they believe that the events are constantly reoccurring. My idea of the nature of time is that events happen once, things only happen once. Time can’t be repeated; we can’t go back into time. Life only happens once; we aren’t reborn. I believe life could be looked at as a snapshot of events, but events that can be captured, put into a photo album, and happen only once. Our afterlife lies in whichever religion we most strongly believe in, it’s not a series of reoccurring events, although that is a neat idea.
The end of the book was a great ending point it left me an impression that whenever someone is satisfied with who they are then they will be happy. If people keep on searching for something they may never find it. This seems to be very similar to what the article was talking about with the past present and future time. I feel like it was a good concept to think about, but in the end we will never know because all the nows are separate and can never be retrieved. Therefore, being happy with how things are at this time and what you have, your knowledge and materials, always be content and you will be perfect.
The end of Siddhartha was discussing the aspect of time. Siddhartha says that time does not exist because everything in life just flows together. During life all events flow together like a river. The article is different than what the book states because in the article it talks about how time has snapshots and we are living in the ‘now’. Each ‘now’ is made up of the important events that happen in our life but we have multiple ‘nows’ throughout life. All of the events in our life are chopped up and we remember only certain aspects making up the snapshots. The article and the book have made me think about my idea of time and I think that time does exist. We need time to know when things happen. We plan our lives around time. Every event in our life happens at a certain time. We need to have time or I don’t think our society will function properly.
The ending of Siddhartha left the book feeling complete. Although we knew from the beginning of the book that Siddhartha would reach Nirvana, it was still a good feelikng knowing that he finally got there. Also, the concept of time presented at the end was interesting. I like how it was represented by the river, continuously changing, yet always the same. The article from the magazine presented a similar ldea about time, although it is also different in many ways. It said that every moment in time is continuous, like the river in Siddhartha, but also that every moment is occuring at once. It's an interesting idea to wrap your head around.
Towards the end of the book, Siddhartha says “Time is not real, Govinda. And if time is not real, then the diving line that seems to lie between this world and eternity, between suffering and bliss, between good and evil, is also an illusion” (115). This fits a quote that I found in the Time article which states that “There is no past and no future. Indeed, time and motion are nothing more than illusions.” The book and article are alike in the fact that everything is an illusion, but different in that, in Siddhartha, time is like a river flowing continuously, while in the article, there is “life alongside death” in the “Now.” I was confused by the article because it changed everything I thought that I knew about time, but I like the thought that time is continuous and we will always exist, even if it is in different forms.
At the end of the book, it is revealed that life is an interconnected cycle. Birth and death are described as being part of a timeless unity in which time is a constant flow. This is different from the article we read because it described time as multiple snapshots that we live at the same time. This is an interesting concept to say that every moment in our lives is happening at the same moment. It is almost too perplexing to think about. It is much easier for me to think about time in the most simplistic way, that we are born and then we die, time may exist after our death, but there is really no way of knowing since we do not know any reality or universe apart from our own life.
I liked the end of the book because it helped you to relate the book to real life. For example in the book the river was used as a symbol for time and the way the river flowed is like the nature of time. In a way I think that the river was Siddhartha’s final instructor because as he listened to it, he found out many new things. In the article it explained that time was like snapshots and everything is happening at once, even the things in the past which is different than the book that says time is flowing.
I am not really sure what I think the nature of time is, but I think that it is more like the book. The way the article explains time seems like it could be true, but it’s a lot harder to understand. I think it is easier to think of time as something that just keeps moving. Like after today there will be tomorrow and so on.
At the end of the book, both Siddhartha and Govinda ponder how we percieve time, and if it even exists. The narrator states that Govinda and Siddhartha did not, "...Know(ing) whether or not time existed" and "...Whether there existed a Siddhartha." The idea of time in Siddhartha and in the article is very similar in that it is believed that time does not exist. At the end of the book, Govinda can no longer percieve time, and in the article, it is said that humans are unable to percieve time as well.
In my opinion, time does exist, but not necessarily in the way that we percieve it. Our time system was set up as a way to keep order in society. This means that it is not an accurate way of determining time in the entire universe. I believe that time does exist in the universe, but it is impossible to measure and comprehend.
I like the end of the book because it made me think about it and the book related to real life. Throughout the whole book the conclusion was life is like river continuous stream and it keeps constantly moving. Also, it made me realize, birth and death are part of life. The article was similar how they both go in the detail for time. Also, on page 121 “ He saw the face of a newly born child, red and full wrinkles, ready to cry” “He saw the head of animals-boars, crocodiles, elephants, oxen, birds. He saw all Krishna and Agni.” And I also, believe in reborn and we only make changes in our faces. In other word, reincarnation.
Siddhartha uses the river to explain time and basically say that time is never present and his life is just always flowing. The article says that time is snapshots of what is going on in your life. My knowledge of time is that it shows who you really are and what you really do. Time does not determine whether you are a good or a bad person, kindoff like how Siddhartha describes time as if you do something wrong, you are a wronged person. I dont agree with that at all.
Siddhartha's perception of time connects the past, present, and future together by saying that time essentially does not exist. The past, present and future are all one and simply flow like a river. The article theorized that time was non-existent, like Siddhartha came to realize, but the article instead suggested that each moment exists in its own solitude, having no connection to the moment before or after. Like everyone else, I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around this idea. If this idea was true, there would be an infinite number of "Now's" because the definition of a moment can be infinitely large or small. I believe Time is what connects each of these moments together, but the author of the article believes that Time is not a factor, so what is it that connects each "Now"?
Time has a funny way of making peoples' heads' work up quite a sweat. A tricky and incredibly deep topic, time is often shrugged off and not thought about in depth. After reading Siddhartha and the article in class, I have begun to think more and more about the reality of time. In Siddhartha, he came to understand that time was non-existant, there is no past, nor present, and no future, everything is simply connected in a way that may be quite difficult for some to grasp. I liked the article's theory of time better than the theory described in Siddhartha because it was more in depth and in detail, yet it made you think harder. How could there be a "now" of what you did 20 minutes ago? Is everything happening at the same time? Such ideas are remarkable to me, and provoke thoughts I never would have uncovered before.
I think the book and the article only relate on the point that time all flows together. However in Siddhartha I think the point is that all of time in every aspect is important just like the beginning, middle, and end of a river are important. The article was saying how these snapshots, or important parts of our life that we remember, are just strung together in what we call time.
I think that the ending of Siddhartha and the time article were very similar in their senses of time. At the end of Siddhartha he said that time was virtually inexistant, and that there was no past, present, or future. In the article, there was a similar belief that every moment is an individual "NOW", and that each "NOW", past, present, and future lives on forever. The matter of time is a measurment that was made by humans. In the article it was stated that time is necessary for our world today to function. I also liked in the article how they explained life as a movie reel, and each screen shot represented one now. My brain cannot wrap itself around the fact that there is an eternal "NOW" for each moment in time. I think that it takes an incredible mind to study the science of time, and to be able to do so is amazing.
The end of the book described time in a simpler way than the article. It said time was like a river, everything in your life has flowed together to make a person what they are. In a way this is similar to the article on how everything in life is happening now at once and it is all at the same time, it all flows together. But it is very different because time actually happened in the book unlike the article where time is pretty much non-excistent. Because if everything happened at once then that means not one second would go by. Personally i think time was a man made invention. It is just a way for us to organize our lives with others.
The end of the book relates to the articles in some ways but in another sense its quite different. Siddhartha realizes that time is always flowing and wonders if he exsists or if he is just a part of this ever changing pattern. Where as in the article, the publisher believes that time doesnt exsist and is just a concept made up by people for comfort, both ideas are hard to think about and would be interesting to study. Not.
To me, time is a frivolous and fleeting fancy. Everyone depends on time, if we didnt have a concept of time our lives would dissolve. We use time to plan our entire day, month and year. Were dependent on it, it actually makes decisions for us. I believe that there is infinite worlds, theres another world created everytime we make a decision, and so the outcome of that world is very different. What if einstein had decided not to publish his works? Its a thought provoking idea, but back to time. The world as we know it would truly collapse if we had no measure of time.
At the end of the book Siddartha says that time is a flowing river. I could see why he would say this becasue time will forever go on. That being said i wouldnt go so far and say that time determines someone as a individual. Time is a benchmark of things to happen through a persons life. As far as the article is concerned, i liked how it said that time is needed for our society today. I feel that without time everyones perception of things would be off and the way we all live our lives would be completely different.
At the end of Siddhartha, he states that time is like a flowing river and that it never really starts or ends, thus living in different "nows" all of the time. Personally, I do not believe that. I think things have a specific start and stop and then one thing is always spurred from another ending. Though I do not think the same way, it is interesting to think about the existence and life in general.
Both of the book and the article we read are very similar, but in ways very different. In both, time is irrelevant and everything stays the same. But in one it's only the river. In the other, we are the same as when we die, when we were born and as we are now. We never change.
Despite the fact over fiction or the fiction over fact, I can thoroughly say the article and Siddhartha left me hanging a little. Since I can't obtain answers to certain questions I have I can't say I could believe in either conception of time, or thoroughly understand it. The book tries to explain time in a more spiritual manner and the article tries to explain it in a scientific manner. Both the book and the article uses imagery to try to help us understand what they are trying to explain, something very few people tend to really understand or find.
Since I am young, I can't say I know the nature of time. I think God is the only one that does. I cant say that the nature of time is simply to make us old or wish a moment would last longer but I do know that at any "time" our perceptions change. For example, happiness doesn't last forever-at least not on Earth.
I think that they are saying the same thing with the book saying that time never starts nor ends and the aricle saying that all times are happening at once. They both basically say that time doesn't exist, just in different ways. I think that this was really interesting although it was somewhat hard to fathom.
I felt that both concepts, that of Siddhartha and that of the article were really interesting. At first it was hard for me to grasp the concept of the “nows,” but when I understood it I found it to be quite elaborate and far fetched but still seemed possible. I personally don’t agree with Siddhartha’s concept of time either which is also similar to the article in which time flows together and there isn’t a start or an end. I believe that time starts and stops and that everything are cause and effect. I do like the concept that we are kind of a movie of snap shots and still frames in different times. I think its sort of beautiful in a way.
At the end of siddharth the book concluded that life was like a river. constantly flowing but yet it seemly never changes. That relates to the article about time because in the article it was talking about how there are different nows and how they dont connect to eachother. And if you just stay pleased with now your in you will be happy with your life. That is like the river because at any givin moment you can look at the river and it will appear to be the same but in reality its different the water you were looking is now way down the river.
The idea of time was discussed in two very different ways. The book related time to a river that just keeps on flowing. The article described time as millions of tiny glimpses of a certain happening, and all strung together. It seems that these two ideas are completely opposite.
For me, i agree more with the first idea, that time just keeps on flowing like a river. In my opinion, time never stops, we have days and nights, weeks and years, but it just keeps on going. There are no separate universes in which snap shots of each make up time. Past, present, and future don't all occur at the same time. Time never stops, we have a past, present, and future, all at different times.
I found both the end of the book and the article that we read in class very interesting because it was hard to wrap my head around. For the book, it was talking about how time is something that is constant, like the flowing river. I liked how they related the river to time because it gave me a clearer visual of what the author was trying to describe. For the article, there was a different theory that you are living in the “now” and that all the events of the past, present, and future, are still happening. I have not made a clear decision of what my theory is on the concept of time because it is hard for be to consider all of the possibilities.
ReplyDeleteAnna Billmaier
ReplyDeletePeriod 3
At the end of Siddhartha, the theme of time throughout the book was brought to the conclusion that time was like a river and it just keeps constantly moving and is some way non-existent. In the article, it is saying that time is like snapshots of different instances in time, in different "universes".
It is really hard for me to grasp these concepts because it is so off-base of what we know time to be. I understand what these two theories are saying about time but I'm not sure I can agree that either are true. I think of time as a measure of each day and more of a scientific approach as to why we have a past, present, and future.
Lexy Kaftan
ReplyDeleteThe end of siddhartha says that there is no such thing as time. That life is a flowing river, unending and never starting. The time article basically says that we live in a whole bunch of demensions and periods at once...meaning we are being born, about to die and living our life in the present all at once.
Breanna Taylor
ReplyDeleteSiddhartha's perception of time was that it combines all things and they mush together and the product comes out that time does not exist. In the article it simply talks about the complexity and contradictions of time. I believe in time, for every life form being defferent because the world is infinite and infathomable. One secnd in space time is like 12 hours earth time. and one second earth ime is like 12 hours in microscopic time. Its a hard concept to grasp, but quite amazing. Time is infinite, in size of what its measuring and length backward and forward.
Bridget Cook
ReplyDeleteWhen comparing the end of Siddhartha and the article we read in class. Time is an illusion and everything is happening now. Siddhartha is talking to Govinda and says, "During deep meditation it is possible to dispel time, to see simultaneously all the past, present and future, and everything is good, everything is perfect..." (pg.116) I thought this quote represented the ideas about time in both the book and article. The book and article differ in the idea that either time is like a river, continually running and never different, or that time is completely irrelevant and EVERYTHING is happening now and there is no such thing as the past or future. I think I agree more with the ideas about time in the book, that it is continuously running and there is now definite end or beginning.
Laura Ahlrep
ReplyDeleteIn Siddhartha the idea of the river and how everything he has ever done has all been flowed together to make Siddhartha who he is at that moment. With the article we read in class it claimed that there are different "nows" that contain a part of us so that in some other universe is for example the birth of yourself and you fifty years from now, etc. They relate in how they both discuss time and how it works with how we change and grow. Yet they are different in how in Siddhartha everything flows together and works as one while the article about time explained how everything is cut up and into pieces rather than one big continuous stream. Also they are different by in the theroy of time he explains it as there is a part of you somewhere out there, already existing making you immortal. Yet in Siddhartha they claim that everything you have ever done has made you who you are then with out immortality in mind. Plus you are living for that life you have then to find nirvana in our short time on earth.
My idea on the nature of time is that everything you do makes you who you are today but a wrong doesnt mean that you are a wronged person you just learn from time. This is why in many cultures people see the elders as the wisest because they have learned from time the ideas of life. I don't know if I believe in the whole theroy of having different nows and you will always be immortal.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteSarah Hale☺
ReplyDeleteThe end of the book Siddhartha and the article Time that we read in class are similar and dissimilar in a couple ways. First, they both go into much detail about the way they perceive time moves. In Siddhartha, both Siddhartha and Govinda claim to be able to look into the eyes of one they greatly admire and see the many faces and scenes of their life flash before the their eyes. On page 121 Govinda claims, “He no longer saw the face of Siddhartha. Instead in saw other faces, many faces, a long series, a continuous stream of faces-hundreds, thousands, which all came and disappeared and yet all seemed to be there at the same time, which all continually changed and renewed themselves, and which were all yet Siddhartha.” This quote perfectly describes and relates to the way the article Time believes life is simply a snapshot of events. Only difference is that in Time, they believe that the events are constantly reoccurring. My idea of the nature of time is that events happen once, things only happen once. Time can’t be repeated; we can’t go back into time. Life only happens once; we aren’t reborn. I believe life could be looked at as a snapshot of events, but events that can be captured, put into a photo album, and happen only once. Our afterlife lies in whichever religion we most strongly believe in, it’s not a series of reoccurring events, although that is a neat idea.
Crystal Nybo
ReplyDeleteThe end of the book was a great ending point it left me an impression that whenever someone is satisfied with who they are then they will be happy. If people keep on searching for something they may never find it. This seems to be very similar to what the article was talking about with the past present and future time. I feel like it was a good concept to think about, but in the end we will never know because all the nows are separate and can never be retrieved. Therefore, being happy with how things are at this time and what you have, your knowledge and materials, always be content and you will be perfect.
Christine Nafziger
ReplyDeleteThe end of Siddhartha was discussing the aspect of time. Siddhartha says that time does not exist because everything in life just flows together. During life all events flow together like a river. The article is different than what the book states because in the article it talks about how time has snapshots and we are living in the ‘now’. Each ‘now’ is made up of the important events that happen in our life but we have multiple ‘nows’ throughout life. All of the events in our life are chopped up and we remember only certain aspects making up the snapshots.
The article and the book have made me think about my idea of time and I think that time does exist. We need time to know when things happen. We plan our lives around time. Every event in our life happens at a certain time. We need to have time or I don’t think our society will function properly.
Jenn Hergert
ReplyDeleteThe ending of Siddhartha left the book feeling complete. Although we knew from the beginning of the book that Siddhartha would reach Nirvana, it was still a good feelikng knowing that he finally got there. Also, the concept of time presented at the end was interesting. I like how it was represented by the river, continuously changing, yet always the same.
The article from the magazine presented a similar ldea about time, although it is also different in many ways. It said that every moment in time is continuous, like the river in Siddhartha, but also that every moment is occuring at once. It's an interesting idea to wrap your head around.
Savannah Guillen
ReplyDeleteTowards the end of the book, Siddhartha says “Time is not real, Govinda. And if time is not real, then the diving line that seems to lie between this world and eternity, between suffering and bliss, between good and evil, is also an illusion” (115). This fits a quote that I found in the Time article which states that “There is no past and no future. Indeed, time and motion are nothing more than illusions.” The book and article are alike in the fact that everything is an illusion, but different in that, in Siddhartha, time is like a river flowing continuously, while in the article, there is “life alongside death” in the “Now.” I was confused by the article because it changed everything I thought that I knew about time, but I like the thought that time is continuous and we will always exist, even if it is in different forms.
Gina Chenoweth
ReplyDeleteAt the end of the book, it is revealed that life is an interconnected cycle. Birth and death are described as being part of a timeless unity in which time is a constant flow. This is different from the article we read because it described time as multiple snapshots that we live at the same time. This is an interesting concept to say that every moment in our lives is happening at the same moment. It is almost too perplexing to think about. It is much easier for me to think about time in the most simplistic way, that we are born and then we die, time may exist after our death, but there is really no way of knowing since we do not know any reality or universe apart from our own life.
Tori Weisel
ReplyDeleteI liked the end of the book because it helped you to relate the book to real life. For example in the book the river was used as a symbol for time and the way the river flowed is like the nature of time. In a way I think that the river was Siddhartha’s final instructor because as he listened to it, he found out many new things. In the article it explained that time was like snapshots and everything is happening at once, even the things in the past which is different than the book that says time is flowing.
I am not really sure what I think the nature of time is, but I think that it is more like the book. The way the article explains time seems like it could be true, but it’s a lot harder to understand. I think it is easier to think of time as something that just keeps moving. Like after today there will be tomorrow and so on.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteBrody Hovatter
ReplyDeleteAt the end of the book, both Siddhartha and Govinda ponder how we percieve time, and if it even exists. The narrator states that Govinda and Siddhartha did not, "...Know(ing) whether or not time existed" and "...Whether there existed a Siddhartha." The idea of time in Siddhartha and in the article is very similar in that it is believed that time does not exist. At the end of the book, Govinda can no longer percieve time, and in the article, it is said that humans are unable to percieve time as well.
In my opinion, time does exist, but not necessarily in the way that we percieve it. Our time system was set up as a way to keep order in society. This means that it is not an accurate way of determining time in the entire universe. I believe that time does exist in the universe, but it is impossible to measure and comprehend.
Jaina Shah
ReplyDeleteI like the end of the book because it made me think about it and the book related to real life. Throughout the whole book the conclusion was life is like river continuous stream and it keeps constantly moving. Also, it made me realize, birth and death are part of life. The article was similar how they both go in the detail for time. Also, on page 121 “ He saw the face of a newly born child, red and full wrinkles, ready to cry” “He saw the head of animals-boars, crocodiles, elephants, oxen, birds. He saw all Krishna and Agni.” And I also, believe in reborn and we only make changes in our faces. In other word, reincarnation.
Erik Enselman
ReplyDeleteSiddhartha uses the river to explain time and basically say that time is never present and his life is just always flowing. The article says that time is snapshots of what is going on in your life. My knowledge of time is that it shows who you really are and what you really do. Time does not determine whether you are a good or a bad person, kindoff like how Siddhartha describes time as if you do something wrong, you are a wronged person. I dont agree with that at all.
April Dick
ReplyDeleteSiddhartha's perception of time connects the past, present, and future together by saying that time essentially does not exist. The past, present and future are all one and simply flow like a river. The article theorized that time was non-existent, like Siddhartha came to realize, but the article instead suggested that each moment exists in its own solitude, having no connection to the moment before or after. Like everyone else, I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around this idea. If this idea was true, there would be an infinite number of "Now's" because the definition of a moment can be infinitely large or small. I believe Time is what connects each of these moments together, but the author of the article believes that Time is not a factor, so what is it that connects each "Now"?
Mark Galambos
ReplyDeleteTime has a funny way of making peoples' heads' work up quite a sweat. A tricky and incredibly deep topic, time is often shrugged off and not thought about in depth. After reading Siddhartha and the article in class, I have begun to think more and more about the reality of time. In Siddhartha, he came to understand that time was non-existant, there is no past, nor present, and no future, everything is simply connected in a way that may be quite difficult for some to grasp. I liked the article's theory of time better than the theory described in Siddhartha because it was more in depth and in detail, yet it made you think harder. How could there be a "now" of what you did 20 minutes ago? Is everything happening at the same time? Such ideas are remarkable to me, and provoke thoughts I never would have uncovered before.
Nik Toor
ReplyDeleteI think the book and the article only relate on the point that time all flows together. However in Siddhartha I think the point is that all of time in every aspect is important just like the beginning, middle, and end of a river are important. The article was saying how these snapshots, or important parts of our life that we remember, are just strung together in what we call time.
Garrett Johnson
ReplyDeleteI think that the ending of Siddhartha and the time article were very similar in their senses of time. At the end of Siddhartha he said that time was virtually inexistant, and that there was no past, present, or future. In the article, there was a similar belief that every moment is an individual "NOW", and that each "NOW", past, present, and future lives on forever. The matter of time is a measurment that was made by humans. In the article it was stated that time is necessary for our world today to function. I also liked in the article how they explained life as a movie reel, and each screen shot represented one now. My brain cannot wrap itself around the fact that there is an eternal "NOW" for each moment in time. I think that it takes an incredible mind to study the science of time, and to be able to do so is amazing.
Leslee Fall
ReplyDeleteThe end of the book described time in a simpler way than the article. It said time was like a river, everything in your life has flowed together to make a person what they are. In a way this is similar to the article on how everything in life is happening now at once and it is all at the same time, it all flows together. But it is very different because time actually happened in the book unlike the article where time is pretty much non-excistent. Because if everything happened at once then that means not one second would go by. Personally i think time was a man made invention. It is just a way for us to organize our lives with others.
Brian Gleadle
ReplyDeleteThe end of the book relates to the articles in some ways but in another sense its quite different. Siddhartha realizes that time is always flowing and wonders if he exsists or if he is just a part of this ever changing pattern. Where as in the article, the publisher believes that time doesnt exsist and is just a concept made up by people for comfort, both ideas are hard to think about and would be interesting to study. Not.
To me, time is a frivolous and fleeting fancy. Everyone depends on time, if we didnt have a concept of time our lives would dissolve. We use time to plan our entire day, month and year. Were dependent on it, it actually makes decisions for us. I believe that there is infinite worlds, theres another world created everytime we make a decision, and so the outcome of that world is very different. What if einstein had decided not to publish his works? Its a thought provoking idea, but back to time. The world as we know it would truly collapse if we had no measure of time.
Dan McMillan
ReplyDeleteAt the end of the book Siddartha says that time is a flowing river. I could see why he would say this becasue time will forever go on. That being said i wouldnt go so far and say that time determines someone as a individual. Time is a benchmark of things to happen through a persons life. As far as the article is concerned, i liked how it said that time is needed for our society today. I feel that without time everyones perception of things would be off and the way we all live our lives would be completely different.
Kirsten Zoba
ReplyDeleteAt the end of Siddhartha, he states that time is like a flowing river and that it never really starts or ends, thus living in different "nows" all of the time. Personally, I do not believe that. I think things have a specific start and stop and then one thing is always spurred from another ending. Though I do not think the same way, it is interesting to think about the existence and life in general.
Both of the book and the article we read are very similar, but in ways very different. In both, time is irrelevant and everything stays the same. But in one it's only the river. In the other, we are the same as when we die, when we were born and as we are now. We never change.
ReplyDeleteDespite the fact over fiction or the fiction over fact, I can thoroughly say the article and Siddhartha left me hanging a little. Since I can't obtain answers to certain questions I have I can't say I could believe in either conception of time, or thoroughly understand it. The book tries to explain time in a more spiritual manner and the article tries to explain it in a scientific manner. Both the book and the article uses imagery to try to help us understand what they are trying to explain, something very few people tend to really understand or find.
ReplyDeleteSince I am young, I can't say I know the nature of time. I think God is the only one that does. I cant say that the nature of time is simply to make us old or wish a moment would last longer but I do know that at any "time" our perceptions change. For example, happiness doesn't last forever-at least not on Earth.
Maxx Forde
ReplyDeleteI think that they are saying the same thing with the book saying that time never starts nor ends and the aricle saying that all times are happening at once. They both basically say that time doesn't exist, just in different ways. I think that this was really interesting although it was somewhat hard to fathom.
Denisse Manrique
ReplyDeleteI felt that both concepts, that of Siddhartha and that of the article were really interesting. At first it was hard for me to grasp the concept of the “nows,” but when I understood it I found it to be quite elaborate and far fetched but still seemed possible. I personally don’t agree with Siddhartha’s concept of time either which is also similar to the article in which time flows together and there isn’t a start or an end. I believe that time starts and stops and that everything are cause and effect. I do like the concept that we are kind of a movie of snap shots and still frames in different times. I think its sort of beautiful in a way.
Craig Thomas
ReplyDeleteAt the end of siddharth the book concluded that life was like a river. constantly flowing but yet it seemly never changes. That relates to the article about time because in the article it was talking about how there are different nows and how they dont connect to eachother. And if you just stay pleased with now your in you will be happy with your life. That is like the river because at any givin moment you can look at the river and it will appear to be the same but in reality its different the water you were looking is now way down the river.
The idea of time was discussed in two very different ways. The book related time to a river that just keeps on flowing. The article described time as millions of tiny glimpses of a certain happening, and all strung together. It seems that these two ideas are completely opposite.
ReplyDeleteFor me, i agree more with the first idea, that time just keeps on flowing like a river. In my opinion, time never stops, we have days and nights, weeks and years, but it just keeps on going. There are no separate universes in which snap shots of each make up time. Past, present, and future don't all occur at the same time. Time never stops, we have a past, present, and future, all at different times.